request for approval of APOSSL

dave sag dave.sag at
Wed Mar 6 17:43:46 UTC 2002

At 9:48 AM -0500 6/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>  > APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
>>  * the name of the software should not include or Pronoic Ltd.
>That makes it like the Apache license, I think.

that's fine.

>  >
>>  * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
>>  for permission to use the term pronoic.
>Yes. I see that clause 4 says that.
>>                                            in that case your request
>>  will be denied.
>Clause 4 doesn't say that.  It says that you can get written
>permission by contacting contact at  "Before
>obtaining written permission" also indicates that written
>permission is available.  Read it:

well permission *could* be granted. It does not  i was taking a 
contrary line but as you point out there is nothing in the licence 
that forces me to deny such a request.  we reserve the right to 
refuse such a request is a better way of saying it.  however if you 
don't ask then we won't refuse.

>   * 4. The term pronoic should be used to endorse and promote products derived
>   *    from this software before obtaining written permission. For written
>   *    permission, you must contact contact at
>But since you have just written you will never give permission, the license
>clause 4 is nonsense and is an offer in bad faith.

i see your point but never is a long time.  i was hasty in saying we 
would never give permission and that is not implied by the licence. 
all i am saying is that once you have asked permission you don't need 
to use the term any more - as is clear in the licence.  as previously 
stated the licence should speak for itself.

>  > As far as I am aware, having slightly off-beat goals is not a reason
>>  to deny an OSSL such accreditation. 
>It is well recognized that the OSD is incomplete.  I think it is
>proper that the OSI board rejects licenses with nonsense clauses
>or that are internally contradicting, even if they do not have
>an OSD conflict.  I think it is proper that they pay no attention
>to licenses when the author says up front that he puts it forth
>in bad faith.

I agree.  what I am trying to do in ensure it is not utter nonsense 
or proposed in bad faith.  what actions I may take are outside the 
scope of the OSD.

>Whine all you want about how it isn't fair that you have a
>quine'd license which is OSD comptible.  I still recommend it
>is soundly rejected as a "this statement is false" license.

I haven't started to whine yet have I?  What does "quine'd" mean?

The licence is NOT paradoxical, just unusual.

>Use the Apache license.

It does not reflect our aims.

I get the idea that you feel that there should be as few OSSLs as 
possible and are acting more as a review board than an accreditation 
board.  Surely a licence conforms to the OSD or it does not.  Whether 
there is matter in the licence that is outside of the scope of the 
OSD would seem to me to be irrelevant to the veracity of the licence.



license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list